Green Light for Human/Animal Hybrids

Henneshoe writes "BBC News is reporting that two research facilities have been given the green light to create part human, part animal embryos. According the the report, 'Scientists want to create hybrid embryos by merging human cells with animal eggs in a bid to extract stem cells. The embryos would then be destroyed within 14 days.' The decision to allow the embryos was made after research showed that people in large are OK with the idea."

Comments

I can hear the excuses already...

[grub]

"Your Honour, I was just working on creating a Human/Sheep hybrid."

Re:I can hear the excuses already...

[JustShootMe]

I was going to make a comment about men in Montana being light years ahead of this research, but you beat me to it.

At least this way the sheep aren't nervous.

Re:I can hear the excuses already...

[Rude Turnip]

Yeah, but if the technology really worked, everyone in New Zealand would already be a billionaire several times over.

Re:I can hear the excuses already...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your Honour, I was just working on creating a Human/Sheep hybrid."

This is one area the governments of the world would love to see success. They have been trying to turn people into sheep for untold millenia, to varying degrees of success.

Re:I can hear the excuses already...

[linumax]

Yeah, but if the technology really worked, everyone in New Zealand would already be a billionaire several times over. or with over 40 million sheep if it goes awry...

Re:I can hear the excuses already...

[Anonymous Coward]

"merging human cells with animal eggs"

Which human cells? And how are you going to get them close the the animal eggs?

I just can't help feeling this just means a bunch of scientists violating some poor sheep, then feasting on lamb chops two weeks later.

Where do I apply for my research license?

Re:I can hear the excuses already...

[russ1337]

Hey! I'm a New Zealander!!!

You did remind me of the story my uncle told me about the time he was on the farm with an Australian businessman. Coming over the brow of the hill on the tractor he saw a sheep with its head stuck between the wires in the fence, so being a true New Zealander he did what you suggested - attempted to make a human / sheep hybrid.

When he hopped back on the tractor he said to the Australian "Hey mate, do you want to have a go?" And before he could say anthing more the Australian businessman got down off the tractor, walked over to the sheep and ....



Stuck his head through the wires.

Re:I can hear the excuses already...

[stinkybob(2)]

I, for one, welcome our new Human/Sheep overlords.

Re:I can hear the excuses already...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought sheeple already existed.

Re:I can hear the excuses already...

[ComputerPhreak]

Human/Sheep hybrid? Personally I'd want to be a Human/Horse hybrid, for the extra size of my... legs. So I could run faster.

Re:I can hear the excuses already...

[brjndr]

My roommate in law school was from New Zealand, and this was only joke Kiwi's I knew at the time...

Q. How does a New Zealander find a sheep in the tall grass?

A. Very satisfying.

Re:I can hear the excuses already...

[plover]

All this talk of "green light" and "light years" made me think of the green lighted kitties they've already cloned.

Please, won't someone think of the glow-in-the-dark kitties?

Re:I can hear the excuses already...

[DMCBOSTON]

Brundlefly is not amused...

Re:I can hear the excuses already...

[gargletheape]

Wait...doesn't that just make New Zealanders zoophiles and Australians gay bottoms? I definitely know which I'd rather be...

Re:I can hear the excuses already...

[JustShootMe]

Not that there's anything wrong with being gay, I think I'd prefer to be the zoophile.

At least a sheep won't want to cuddle afterwards.

Re:I can hear the excuses already...

[Foobar of Borg]

Please, won't someone think of the glow-in-the-dark kitties?

I love glow-in-the-dark kitties. They're easy to shoot at night and make cool light patterns if you launch several of them out of a trebuchet.

Re:I can hear the excuses already...

[Anne_Nonymous]

Q: Why to Scotsmen wear the kilt?

A: So the sheep don't hear a zipper.

Re:I can hear the excuses already...

[ruinous]

Funny that you mention that, as there's a New Zealand movie called Black Sheep about exactly that.

Except everything goes horribly wrong, and they end up with 1000s of zombie sheep running about the place, eating everyone (and turning bitten survivors into weresheep).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0779982/

Re:I can hear the excuses already...

[professional_troll]

Q) Do you know why when a Kiwi fucks a sheep he does so at the edge of a cliff?

A) It's so the sheep will push back

Re:I can hear the excuses already...

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read this _twice_ as: glow-in-the-dark titties ...

Please, won't someone think of the possibilities ?

Anonymous for obvious reasons..

ObBart

[sharkey]

God, schomd, I want my monkey-man!

Re:ObBart

[Type-E]

You got George W. Bush. Or was he half human, half ass?

Re:ObBart

[0p7imu5_P2im3]

You were half right with that. I hear the Dems were considering his likeness for their logo.

Re:ObBart

[Leftist Troll]

No, he's the five-assed monkey.

Up Next .... your own personal Hell-Boy

[HW_Hack]

Can I get horns with that ?

Sweet!

[foreverdisillusioned]

Dibs on platypus!

People in Iarge?

[faloi]

Do they speak English in Iarge?

Re:People in Iarge?

[carrier lost]

Do they speak English in Iarge?

This is how it starts. First it's embryos, then they're in larging people.

Re:People in Iarge?

[Anonymous Coward]

Large ain't no country I've ever heard of.

Re:People in Iarge?

[mqduck]

Do they speak English in Iarge? ln case you didn't know, that was short for "in large part".

people in large are OK

[KillerCow]

The decision to allow the embryos was made after research showed that people in large are OK with the idea

I am glad that we are trusting the unwashed masses to make important technical decisions that they know nothing about. If Britney says it's safe, then it must be. God bless Democracy.

I, for one, welcome our species hopping virus overlords.

Re:people in large are OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention the talking killer cows!

Re:people in large are OK

[easyTree]

I, for one, welcome our species hopping virus overlords.

Lol!

My favourite slashdot meme.

Re:people in large are OK

[ajs]

I am glad that we are trusting the unwashed masses to make important technical decisions that they know nothing about. I think you misunderstand... the government almost certainly wanted to make sure that there would not be backlash against the idea after having ALREADY made their decision on a technical level (since the advisers in question would have been the ones to bring the issue to that level). However, I'm sure they formed the question in a reasonable way that didn't imply that the island of Dr. Moreau would be coming to a Kwiki-Mart near you. Slashdot, on the other hand....

Even the summary, once you get past that horrid title, makes it clear that we're not talking about changing the DNA involved, but rather using eggs from animals to grow cells that were taken from a human. I can't really imagine why I'd have a problem with growing cells from a human that way vs. previous experiments that have cultured human cells in a stand-alone environment.

Re:people in large are OK

[GreggBz]

..and they'll never have a reason to learn anything about it if we keep making all the decisions without them.

Or, maybe they should just ask us experts at slashdot for our opinions.

Re:people in large are OK

[SharpFang]

The problem is that the scientific community is usually OK with the idea. They know the limits and the problems best, and know how far they can move ahead without doing something that would make them avoid looking in the mirror.

It's the "unwashed masses" that protest most - people with no clue, no understanding, loaded with prejudices and unwilling to learn - and they can be a serious roadblock. After all, a vote of a scientist is worth the same as a vote of a redneck, but there's 1000 rednecks for each scientist, so let's follow the voice of the majority!

Only if most people are OK with given idea, the lawmakers are willing to give green light to the scientists to progress.

Re:people in large are OK

[morgan_greywolf]

It seems reasonable to me as long as the animals are treated in the most humane manner possible. I would have some reservations as to what methods would be acceptable for extracting the eggs -- hopefully this would be done without harm to the animal.

Pursuing a true human/animal hybrid ala changing DNA would be, IMHO, wreckless and unethical. In any respect, in almost every case, such an experiment would fail anyways. Human DNA isn't compatible in that way with many other species -- maybe chimpanzees (and even that's a stretch), but that's about it. In any respect, as you point out, that's not what they're doing here.

Re:people in large are OK

[0p7imu5_P2im3]

I can't really imagine why I'd have a problem with growing cells from a human that way vs. previous experiments that have cultured human cells in a stand-alone environment.

The only thing changed by using a live pre-embryonic cell from an animal is that you now has a slightly higher success rate. If allowed to continue to adulthood, the resulting adult would be just as human as you (assuming you are) or I (pretty sure I am).

This is a classic case of wolf in sheep's clothing, only reversed. No matter what you do with human cloning, so long as the DNA is decidedly human, a human is killed when "embryos would then be destroyed. [FTA]"

Note that it takes a large change to make a set of DNA inhuman. The differences between your DNA and mine are many small differences, however the differences between a monkey's DNA and ours constitute an order of magnitude (perhaps even 2 or 3) greater number of differences.

Re:people in large are OK

[jmdc]

I assume the public is not making a technical decision, or a safety evaluation, but an ethical choice. The majority of people don't object to these hybrids on ethical grounds, so they are to able to continue because, as we all know, what is popular is always right.

Re:people in large are OK

[cthulu_mt]

There is no Cow Level!

Re:people in large are OK

[Sergeant Pepper]

No matter what you do with human cloning, so long as the DNA is decidedly human, a human is killed when "embryos would then be destroyed. [FTA]" That is your opinion. You can choose to have that opinion. I, personally, disagree entirely.

The only FACT is that embryos are destroyed.

Re:people in large are OK

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest you all look at www.covancecruelty.com

This is the 'cutting edge' of so-called animal 'research' today...

Can anybody spell FRAUD?

Re:people in large are OK

[numbski]

You do understand that there may very well be serious ramifications to creating a chimera, right? Sure, they won't let one grow full term, and even if they did it likely wouldn't survive. Fine.

What if? How would people react if one of these scientists allowed a chimera to be born?

Re:people in large are OK

[mikechant]

Human DNA isn't compatible in that way with many other species...

It's highly likely you could do something equivalent to splicing jellyfish 'glow' genes into human dna, since this has been done with pigs and chickens, but I guess you wouldn't call that a 'true' hybrid - you've got a glow-in-the dark human, not a humllyfish or a jellman.

But it does raise the question of how many (e.g.) jellyfish characteristics you *would* have to put into a human to make a 'true hybrid'...

Re:people in large are OK

[ajs]

It seems reasonable to me as long as the animals are treated in the most humane manner possible. If you want to have that debate, this topic is the wrong place to start. Start with this: http://www.lightner.net/ybdb/images/polytron.gif?Commercial+Challenger&

Re:people in large are OK

[Anonymous Coward]

"Scientists want to create hybrid embryos by merging human cells with animal eggs in a bid to extract stem cells. The embryos would then be destroyed within 14 days."

We already knew that the majority of the U.K. population condones feticide to the point of their own cultural demise. So, it's hardly a stretch for the majority to also approve the destruction of human embryos.

Science tells us that from conception to birth, there's a human life that is growing! So, how can anyone consciously and literally nip a growing human life in the bud? Are we seriously going to continue adding to the millions of lives that will never be seen nor heard, a worldwide holocaust neatly tucked under the rug? No grave markers to dignify the life that was prematurely extinguished?

Re:people in large are OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Freaky... Now imagine if some military project were to create clone soldiers using some sufficiently large animal surrogate to bring them to full term. Thus there could be a soldier class with no family to speak of other than the nation-state that pulls them out of cows or whatever. (And some people think the history of ancient Sparta was pretty rough.) And if they were kept secret enough, you could have the ultimate expendable battalion.

Re:people in large are OK

[IdeaMan]

What? Then why do I have Oscar Pistorius' leg and a copy of Portal?

Re:people in large are OK

[tm2b]

When trying to do science, it's good not be be burned at the stake by villagers with pitchforks.

As a result, a head count of one vote per pitchfork ahead of time is sometime wise.

Re:people in large are OK

[fractoid]

Note that it takes a large change to make a set of DNA inhuman. The differences between your DNA and mine are many small differences, however the differences between a monkey's DNA and ours constitute an order of magnitude (perhaps even 2 or 3) greater number of differences. You're on very shaky ground here. The real answer is to realise that a human embryo is no more or less special than any other embryo - just like the only objective reason that a human child is more valuable or worthy of protection than a puppy or a kitten is that it's our own species, and that it's smarter and more versatile. I'd grade creatures into a matrix of four classes depending on whether they're viable (can produce viable offspring) and/or capable of sentience. So a chimera embryo would be nonviable, a healthy human embryo would be a viable sentient, and a damaged human embryo with genetic defects that prevent breeding would be nonviable sentient.

Re:people in large are OK

[0p7imu5_P2im3]

Finally, an open mind in this mess. I think you're starting to understand what I was trying to bring towards conclusion in my previous, apparently flamebait-worthy (who knew?), post.

The cell in which the DNA is developed into a living being is not as important as the DNA itself. Human DNA in a pig embryo will still produce a human, if allowed and provided the necessary materials and environment to continue development. Thus, killing it because it appears unhealthy before verifying such beyond a doubt is equivalent to euthanasia just as much as doing so after verification would be. (And here's where any semblance of a debate will likely end.) As far as I'm concerned, since Hitler supported such acts, I would firmly put my weight against them.

Disclaimer: I don't mean to make this a debate on abortion. My intent is to explore the ethics of this situation as it applies to scientific methods. I could care less about the legality of abortion. If people want to kill their own children before they are born, then I would submit them to a new category of the Darwin Awards, because in evolution (i.e., survival of the fittest) a species is unlikely to be considered fit to reproduce if it kills its own offspring before such reproduction can occur. Their lack of intent to continue the species does not decrease mine, so what reason have I to care?

Re:people in large are OK

[fractoid]

Glad you liked it! ;)

The cell in which the DNA is developed into a living being is not as important as the DNA itself. Human DNA in a pig embryo will still produce a human, if allowed and provided the necessary materials and environment to continue development. Thus, killing it because it appears unhealthy before verifying such beyond a doubt is equivalent to euthanasia just as much as doing so after verification would be. Well, quibbles about mitochondrial DNA aside (a pig ovum with only human nuclear DNA may still end up a manbearpig, we don't know enough about the mechanism yet) I agree. It's the 'special stuff', which we think is just the DNA, that determines what something is even as a zygote. Saying that it's not just because it needs a very special environment (the womb) to develop is like saying that a kid with a natural aptitude for maths isn't 'good at maths' because they need to be taught it. Killing a human embryo is tantamount to killing a human, but without the waste of resources implied in killing an adult human. Depending on your viewpoint, that can be a grave sin (destroying a unique and beautiful snowflake) or a trivial inconvenience (the same decaying organic matter as the rest of us).

(And here's where any semblance of a debate will likely end.) As far as I'm concerned, since Hitler supported such acts, I would firmly put my weight against them. I would never oppose something purely because a bad person supported it - I remember someone here has a sig that's something along the lines of "Nullus Logicum Fallacy: A conclusion is not necessarily false merely because an invalid argument lead to it." At this point it's a personal choice of values - for my sake I wouldn't kill an embryo unless absolutely necessary but I wouldn't picket an abortion clinic.

Their lack of intent to continue the species does not decrease mine, so what reason have I to care? Good way to look at it! :) In fact, in an odd way, when we found out that my fiancee was pregnant I had a very strong feeling that I'd 'won' at life. :)

Re:people in large are OK

[0p7imu5_P2im3]

Good point on the "Nullus Logicum Fallacy." I was really referring more to the "eugenics through euthanasia" aspect of Hitler's pronounced beliefs, but I wanted to do so in a way that would discourage from posting those who were not interested in discussion.

As to picketing an abortion clinic, embarrassing people at a time when they are already conflicted is not a way to endear them to your cause. If they really want to make a difference, and not just make a show to make themselves feel better, they should be discretely handing out adoption pamphlets at the clinics, or something similarly respectful.

I guess in my case, it comes down to how close I was to being "aborted." If my parents had felt they were ready, I would have had an older sibling. I came about by the combination of a snow storm and a lack of contraceptives, so you can see how close I was to being biological waste as opposed to the societal participant (debatable) I am today.

Re:people in large are OK

[fractoid]

Yes - in my opinion people should be more open to the idea of voluntary, positive eugenics (think Heinlein's Howard Families) but there's always the association with Hitler's treatment of 'undesirables'.

I agree about the right way to go about 'pro-life' activites. Letting people know that there are options other than abortion is a great start, I very much doubt that many women relish the prospect. Simply realising that their child can have a good home with loving foster parents may swing them in the direction of carrying the child to term.

Interestingly, I'm in a similar case to you in the older sibling stakes, although it went the other way - my mother and her partner weren't in a position to look after a child and so she put her first up for adoption. Now, 32 years later, I have an awesome older half-sister who is scarily similar to mum given that the two never met until my sister was in her late 20s. That's put me firmly in the 'adoption is better than abortion' camp, but at the same time, I can see that some people would find it easier to snuff out a tiny spark than let it grow and risk their child suffering abuse at the hands of unknown foster parents later.

paging...

[debatem1]

Dr. Moreau unavailable for comment.

Re:paging...

[nojomofo]

John Madden throws his support behind it - this should lower the price of turduckens significantly.

Re:paging...

[Britz]

First thing that came to my mind was that dreadful island. I listened to the audio book and it was very scary at some points.

Re:paging...

[unbug]

Napoleon, on the other hand, stated that although the policy of "four legs good, two legs better" would not undergo significant changes, it might be extended to include "three legs nice".

Oooh...

[DaTrueDave]

Gives new meaning to saying that your girlfriend is a fox!

Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

We furries WILL have our day after all! I guess I know where we need to have our next convention.

Re:Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. In a wood chipper.

Bzzzzzzzzz

[southpolesammy]

Presumably none of these so-called "people at-large" have ever seen the movie "The Fly".

Re:Bzzzzzzzzz

[Surt]

Sure they did. They rooted for the fly.

Re:Bzzzzzzzzz

[zippthorne]

Which one? The human who slowly turned into a giant fly? or the unshown, but presumed by symmetry fly that slowly turned into a tiny human?

Re:Bzzzzzzzzz

[Blakey Rat]

First of all, you suck for linking to the sequel and not to the original: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051622/

Secondly, these scientists aren't trying to invent teleportation, they're trying to extract stem cells. Teleportation (and giant flies) are another department.

Argh

[Hsien-Ko]

DAMMIT i don't want my first life to be second life :(

Green light for animal cruelty

[Dara Hazeghi]

This is animal cruelty, plain and simple. Do you know how many embryos are going to be destroyed, and how many animals are going to be sacrificed to get said embryos, in order to do this ridiculous research? There are better ways to get stem cells people. I have mixed feelings about stem cells anyway... yes they're great for possibly fixing spinal cord injuries and growing new pancreai for type I diabetics but I fear that over time a rich elite will be able to live indefinitely with ready made clones from harvested stem cells. This research makes a frankenstein much closer to reality. Just what we need.. the rich living forever.

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[pla]

This is animal cruelty, plain and simple.

Because 14-day-old embryos have such well-developed nervous systems that they can appreciate (nevermind even "experience") pain?



Do you know how many embryos are going to be destroyed

No. Do you?

More importantly - So what? At that stage of life, you have organic scum in a tube. What it could someday turn into has no relevance to its status at that developmental level.



There are better ways to get stem cells people.

Yes - Yes, we do indeed have better ways. But the goddamned fundies don't seem inclined to let us use the numerous extra embryos from human fertility therapies (nevermind abortions), so we need to find new, even more absurd, ways to get them.

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, animal cruelty, maybe you should complain to god, after all he/she/other made animals (according to a book which probably wasnt finished or translated properly).
But also according to that book, god has plans for everything, so, all of this cloning and other stuff is just part of gods plan.
In which case god plan you to make that comment, and planned me to really with this one.
so, in conclusion where all god, just talking to ourself.

pfft, but i would like to see halfings, elves, etc, and dragons,...yes, humans spliced with lizard/reptile dna, possibly even dinosaurs. all of them, a big multi headed beast.

great, now i have to type the secret word jigsaw twice!

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[thanatos_x]

So you not only take issue with human stem cells, but animal stem cells as well. You have concern for the small number (say 10,000) of animals which may die to provide the embryos.

Somehow you seem more horrified that those 10,000 die to provide embryos (which you so clearly point out can be used to ease human suffering) than the millions upon millions of animals that die every year to feed us (inefficiently, from a calorie viewpoint), or the thousands of animals which get tested on.

Why people care so much about things which are never self-aware, let alone capable of feeling pain, yet turn a blind eye to the suffering of people (and animals) that is very real astounds me. Darfur? No, you're more outraged about stem cell research.

You can have moral issues with both, but please get your priorities straight. Hundreds of thousands dying and starving for NO good reason compared to cells with hundreds of deaths that were going to happen anyway (abortion isn't going away, even if made illegal) that may alleviate the suffering of millions.

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[ianare]

I hope you are a veggan, otherwise you animal rights accusations are completely hypocritical.
As for the rich getting better medical care than the poor, this has always been the case, always will be. However, in many countries, the poorer get a minimum amount of health care, and if significant advances are made using stem cells, those people would benefit as well.

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[Spokehedz]

You sir, pwn.

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[geekoid]

"This is animal cruelty, plain and simple. "
no it's not, not by any stretch of imagination...well, except you and a few deluded others.

"Do you know how many embryos are going to be destroyed, and how many animals are going to be sacrificed to get said embryos, in order to do this ridiculous research?"

No, and the research isn't ridiculous, it's needed.

"...but I fear ..."
That explains your emotional reaction and lack of actual logic."

"he rich living forever."
Why is that bad? It's not like when they die the money gets returned. From a financial standpoint, they DO live forever.

"This research makes a frankenstein much closer to reality."

Except it has nothing in common with the book or the movie 'Frankenstein'. In fact, what the hell would be wrong with being able to bring the dead back to life?

This research will let us stop aging, and eradicate the disease of aging and dying of natural causes then I'm all for it. I want to live forever. and ever. and then some.

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[Antiocheian]

Because 14-day-old embryos have such well-developed nervous systems that they can appreciate (nevermind even "experience") pain?

So, it is not cruel when one does not "appreciate" or "experience" pain? You could then sedate a person to the point of being incapable of doing either in order to morally kill them?

But the goddamned fundies don't seem inclined to let us use the numerous extra embryos from human fertility therapies

I wish you were such an embryo.

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[zoips]

Because 14-day-old embryos have such well-developed nervous systems that they can appreciate (nevermind even "experience") pain?

So, it is not cruel when one does not "appreciate" or "experience" pain? You could then sedate a person to the point of being incapable of doing either in order to morally kill them? Your argument is stupid and you know it, so why bother posting it?

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[goldspider]

What it could someday turn into has no relevance to its status at that developmental level.

Until somebody INEVITABLY allows such an embryo to develop. What then?

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[Choad Namath]

I fear that over time a rich elite will be able to live indefinitely with ready made clones from harvested stem cells. This research makes a frankenstein much closer to reality. Just what we need.. the rich living forever.

Way to reject that whole "reads and watches too much sci-fi and buys into all of it" stereotype. I'm just afraid of when they start making animal-human-robot hybrids that become an underclass and then take their cruel, emotionless revenge on us all.

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[Anonymous Coward]

I've always said that if the first thing you think of when you see someone that disagrees with you is "that's stupid", then you're not a scientist. I realize that by and large, the whole /. community is very pro technology, pro atheism (what part of the internet isn't, these days?), and generally thinks they know better than everyone else on the planet. I don't have any delusions that this post is going to sway any minds, but if a large portion of the population has a (in my view legitimate) concern, isn't it our duty as open minded people (hah!) to respect that view instead of dismissing it?

Oh, um, yay for human-cthulhu hybrid overlords from communist Russia...

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[mandelbr0t]

Yes - Yes, we do indeed have better ways. But the goddamned fundies don't seem inclined to let us use the numerous extra embryos from human fertility therapies (nevermind abortions), so we need to find new, even more absurd, ways to get them.

I don't know that I'd say absurd. If we can get stem cells and appease the religious nuts at the same time without spending appreciably more money, then go for it. Most arguments against stem cell research are based on the idea that we're experimenting with "human life". This clearly isn't. Of course some nutbar is still going to equate destroying the embryos with abortion, but I'd say those people will largely be on the fringe.

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[NewtonFan]

[quote]Because 14-day-old embryos have such well-developed nervous systems that they can appreciate (nevermind even "experience") pain?[/quote] This has always interested me. If you continue your reasoning, will that mean that you can kill someone under anaesthesia? (I know it's absurd, but just for discussing)

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[thanatos_x]

For discussion's sake, I'd say there's two separate reasons that are both necessary for that argument and if you only have one you can wind up on a morally slippery slope (or more so than this issue already is.)

The lack of pain makes it far more civil than it would be. This should be a goal for all but the most basic of creatures; most people have a problem with tearing the wings off a fly, and so it makes reasonable sense to not cause any more pain than necessary, and if the pain is too extreme for the benefit received then the action shouldn't be taken at all.

Another area we should define is self-awareness, which is why it is usually considered bad to kill another human, because we also destroy the unique personality that was them. We have awareness and a desire to live, to achieve things for another day beyond that of most other animals. This is probably why although most people object to tearing the wings off a fly, most advocate swatting or zapping them. This is the tacit point which puts a dent in your reasoning.

Beyond this we have the issue of potential, which is where most religious issues come into play; is it right to kill something that has the potential to one day have the same rights, freedoms and thoughts as the rest of us. It's not the most morally clear area, and I don't know people who advocate it simply for it's own sake, however when not done chaotically, but done for a reason it becomes a much harder point to define. My opinion is that an established life has a far greater weight than the potential for life; the established life already is important to many.

I tend to believe that an individual should be able to decide their own fate (and support euthanasia for terminally ill patients.) For larger issues I believe the populace should decide what is right and wrong to the extent that popular opinion does not impede unduly on the minority.

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[Runefox]

So, it is not cruel when one does not "appreciate" or "experience" pain? You could then sedate a person to the point of being incapable of doing either in order to morally kill them?

Here we go again! Simple-minded people say simple-minded things... OK, so based on that argument, and considering we're talking about 14 day old embryos, then given a certain amount of gray area, you're saying that every time you either:

A: Ejaculate into a Kleenex, or
B: Dump the contents of your uterus into the toilet ... You're killing a living being (or in the case of sperm, millions) and/or killing a potential living being?

You know what? You're right! That would mean a hell of a lot more copulation for everyone on Slashdot! Hell, most of the world!

Round everyone up! Time for the orgies to begin! In the name of animal/human rights! =D

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[Runefox]

That's stupid.

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[NewtonFan]

Thanks for your reply, I found it very insightful. You said:

We have awareness and a desire to live, to achieve things for another day beyond that of most other animals. This brings me to another thought: someone under anaesthesia is unconscious, so unaware and has no desire to achieve things. Of course, this person will have awareness and a desire to achieve things in the future (after anaesthesia), but so will an embryo in the future (once developed). You also talked about the desire to live. This is a bit more difficult, because what should one define as the desire to live? Is it that an animal will breathe, that it functions to stay alive, or the higher conscious will to stay alive? If you apply the last definition, a person under anaesthesia has no desire to stay alive. Again, the person will have after anaesthesia, but so will an embryo once developed. If you apply the first definition of desire to live, as far as I can see, it will indeed be ethical to kill an embryo, but it will be unethical to kill an animal and perhaps also to kill a tree.

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[geekoid]

except the person had the desire before they went under using anesthesia. That have had desire, and embryo can not desire, it's not possible at all. desire needs higher brain functions, as apposed to a ball of about 128 cells.

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[thanatos_x]

I'm glad you found it somewhat enlightening.

I think I can counter your point by the fact that the individual under anesthesia was capable of these things before going under, while a human embryo has never had experiences, nor does it have anyone attached to it's personality (this is not to discount those who have had miscarriages)

As for humans having a desire to live versus all living things, I'd submit that all living things do indeed have a desire to live, but humans (and perhaps a few other species, to an extent) have a conscious ability to not live, i.e. it is possible for an individual who is physically fully functioning to choose to end their life, and we tend to honor the idea that someone might die so that someone else could live, even someone not related to them.

While it is true that some animals will do this for the herd or for their offspring, this is true of all animals of that same species and type. Humans differ in that they can choose to sacrifice or not. I also know of no animal who can choose death (suicide) when otherwise healthy. From this perspective humans have a unique desire to live, or at least a far more nuanced one.

We can also justify our choices by looking at the natural cycle of the world which involves death, usually more painful than what humans deem inhumane. The main difference between humans and other animals is that we're too good at what we do. Our killing of things is a near absolute certainty, and it is rare that we have take on much risk to ourselves in doing so.

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! Come on already.... not to sound like a heathen but I for one eat meat. I have no problem with the fact that another "animal" must die that I may live. I'm not even trying to suggest that I as a human I am superior. "we all know deep down inside that the Roaches are" All I'm saying is we farm them we eat them why not further our medical science with them.

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[revengebomber]

So, it is not cruel when one does not "appreciate" or "experience" pain? You could then sedate a person to the point of being incapable of doing either in order to morally kill them? Yes. It's called lethal injection, and is a common method of carrying out a death sentence.

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[Antiocheian]

1. considering we're talking about 14 day old embryos

2. Ejaculate

I have to agree:

Simple-minded people say simple-minded things

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[Per Wigren]

I only respect a person's views if he or she has reasonable arguments for it. I don't respect ignorance. Also, non sequiturs such as "it says so in the Bible" aren't reasonable arguments.

But yes, I think it's our duty to either meet reasonable arguments for our opposite views with reasonable counter-arguments or rethink our own views if we can't find them.

"That's stupid!" is a perfectly valid way to dismiss an argument that IS stupid, but very often people say stupid things not because they are stupid but because there's a conflict of interest involved, or they are simply blinded by culture and ignorant about it.

Re:Green light for animal cruelty

[Antiocheian]

It is diverting, Per Wigren, that your only reasoning on calling my argument stupid is that you have capitalized "is". And regarding logical fallacies, you also tried to poison the well with your reference on the Bible: along with "it's our duty", that did bring a smile, thanks :)

Public Permission?

[ranton]

Since when should the perception of the public decide what research is done and which is not? I can at least understand why a panel such as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority would want to have their opinion heard, but why would they waste their time consulting the public?

Why even create such a government body if they were just going to conduct opinion polls to make their decisions? If you are going to assemble a panel of scientists and ethicists to regulate the scientific community (well at least in the UK), at least you would hope they would use their expertise instead of referring to the public.

Re:Public Permission?

[Surt]

The only reason for these bodies to exist is to make sure the peasants don't care enough to pick up their pitchforks. If the peasants don't care, the research proceeds. If the peasants are pissed off, public education campaigns occur first.

Re:Public Permission?

[morgan_greywolf]

Since when should the perception of the public decide what research is done and which is not? Try asking an abortion doctor.

Re:Public Permission?

[Buelldozer]

Maybe because the peasants are helping to pay for it?

This really has to be one of the few times I've seen someone argue for LESS public input here on /.

Re:Public Permission?

[Serge_Tomiko]

Since when should the perception of the public decide what research is done and which is not?

In the United States, governmental authority and sovereignty rests with the "public". Presumably, their perceptions guide their exercising of their power.

I have always found the issue of sovereignty a bit strange in the United Kingdom. In the end, the law either derives from the people or the monarch. In either case, a panel of scientists is irrelevant as they do not exercise political power, at least not beyond that of any other citizen.

Re:Public Permission?

[Chandon Seldon]

The only reason for these bodies to exist is to make sure the peasants don't care enough to pick up their pitchforks. If the peasants don't care, the research proceeds. If the peasants are pissed off, public education campaigns occur first.

In a perfect world, maybe.

Back in the real world, enough irrational protest can prevent valuable research from occurring - and leave the related commercial sector scraping by with dysfunctional, archaic, and dangerous technology. For a good example, see nuclear power in the USA.

Re:Public Permission?

[Sebastopol]

you're kidding right? read about a period of human scientific study between 1936 and 1945, in Germany. then think about what role the public should play.

Re:Public Permission?

[ranton]

I wasnt talking about having no regulation. But if you RTFA, and then read more about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority at their website: http://www.hfea.gov.uk/, you will find that it is a panel consistant of doctors, scientists, and ethicists. In my post I was saying that it is people like this that I would like making these decisions, not joe six pack.

Re:Public Permission?

[ranton]

Maybe because the peasants are helping to pay for it?

Public money spent on things the public wants is what charity organizations are for. Spending money on things for the good of the people, but that is something the average person wouldnt want to pay for himself, is what the government is for.

Re:Public Permission?

[ThePlague]

Wrong. Governmental authority and sovereignty begins and ends with the constitution. The US is a republic and not a democracy.

Re:Public Permission?

[Malevolent Tester]

Since when should the perception of the public decide what research is done and which is not?

Since May 1 1997.

Re:Public Permission?

[jahudabudy]

Spending money on things for the good of the people, but that is something the average person wouldnt want to pay for himself, is what the government is for.

So you are advocating letting the government decide what is "the good of the people", and object to the idea of including the opinion of the people in such a decision?

Re:Public Permission?

[marko_nz]

I believe it's important in these debates to distinguish between the ethical issues and the technical issues, although of course sometimes things get blurred (though not as often as you might think, and often the blurriness is only because people don't or won't understand the issues in the first place). Why should the public be consulted? Because the public are the ultimate arbitrator of ethical issues. I agree strongly that the public should not be asked to comment on the technical issues, such as "is this dangerous, are we likely to produce terrible monsters by doing this research". Technical committees should answer these questions. The question "Is it ethical to perform this research" can not be answered by a technical committee, as it's not a technical question.

Re:Public Permission?

[Surt]

True, you get total agreement from me. What I meant was that these bodies are an attempt at a better process than just allowing the peasants with pitchforks to have their way.

Re:Public Permission?

[Anonymous Coward]

Example: Iraq.

Re:Public Permission?

[ranton]

So you are advocating letting the government decide what is "the good of the people",

Actually yes, I agree with our founding fathers that the purpose of our government is to take care of its people. I also agree with our founding fathers that the average person often does not know what is the best course of action. Deciding what is for "the good of the people" is the domain of the government. Voting is the mechanism by which the average people try to insure that the people running the government have similar values and beliefs.

It is the job of governmental officials to inform themselves on the issues better than the average person. And because some issues are too important or too complicated for your average politician, sometimes they create "panels" or "think tanks" to make these decisions. I believe that is a good thing.

P.S. I also realize this story is about the UK government, so my comments about the founding fathers of the US are a bit off topic. But since you mentioned what I personally advocate regarding governmental powers and duties, I used my government in my post.

Re:Public Permission?

[ranton]

Why should the public be consulted? Because the public are the ultimate arbitrator of ethical issues

I disagree. Are you saying that your average southern plantation owner should have been consulted in 1800 about the ethics of slavery?

I personally think that the public should be the absolute last result as an arbitrator of ethical issues. The public is often vastly uninformed on most topics. I honestly think that an ethicist, or at least someone with enormous experience and training in dealing with ethical issues, is a much better arbitrator of ethical issues than joe six pack.

Re:Public Permission?

[Serge_Tomiko]

Apparently you have not read the constitution.

It is entirely possible for the people to elect leaders who will amend the constitution out of existence. For that reason along, it is you who are wrong.

In the end however - the effectiveness of law demands the consent of the governed. Many philosophers have dealt with this issue. See Rousseau.

Re:Public Permission?

[ranton]

First off, I honestly dont believe that removing evil dictators from power is an unethical act. But I do agree that the war was grossly mismanaged. But even though the current government has made mistakes on Iraq, I honestly do not trust public opinion polls to run a war as much as even a slightly misguided administration.

And in your example, public opinion actually was for the war. So in this case you would still have the Iraq war even if our government's decisions were made with public opinion polls. Then we would have soon left without even trying to do our best to rebuild the country (even if our best doesnt seam to be good enough).

But after saying that, it is obvious that any government is going to make mistakes. It is still run by human beings. But for every example of unethical behavior from government officials, I bet you could come up with a dozen unethical behaviors in the private sector.

For example, I dont think that the government ran the slave trade in the 1800s. I am pretty sure that it was the people that ran it. Too bad that the evil government tried to tell the people what was good for them and outlawed it.

Re:Public Permission?

[triffid_98]

I think that may have been a misprint, here let me help.

Public money spent on things the public wants is what charity organizations are for. Spending money on things for the good of the corporation, but that is something the average person wouldnt want to pay for himself, is what the government is for.

--
"What we have in this country is socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor"
-Gore Vidal

Re:Public Permission?

[ThePlague]

Notice that to do this, they have to amend the constitution. By your own reasoning, this establishes the constitution as the foundation of governmental authority and sovereignty. Even "the people" must work in a prescribed way to change it.

Re:Public Permission?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, your comments about the founding fathers of the US are ridiculous. The principles they founded this country on were that of self government. They believed that the only person that knows what's best for that person is...that person. To suggest that the founding philosophy was that the unwashed masses can't take care of themselves and therefore put there care and decisions into the hands of their government is ludicrous. It suggests that you have never read any original writings of the founding fathers (including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution) and/or that you are trying to push your agenda forward by telling lies. I suggest you go and actually read, in whole, what the founders of our country wrote. You will find that they believed that every human is capable of ruling themselves and do not need anyone else making decisions for them. The claims you make sound like you are pushing a Communist agenda. Communism is the form of government that says that the individual is incapable of thinking for themselves and should therefore leave decisions about their life in the hands of those that are more "capable" or "intelligent".

If you want to live in a country where you surrender your thinking to someone else, then go find another country to live in. Don't pollute mine.

Re:Public Permission?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your position in general. It is sometimes best not to put policy issues to a direct vote. Even so, I argue that war is not one of those issues. First, war affects individual lives at a deeper level than other issues (such as science funding). Second, public support for a war is vital from a tactical/strategic point of view - troop morale, war bonds, and volunteer programs all benefit greatly from a supportive public. Third, wars have a tendency to last a long time, often through multiple election cycles. A disaffected public may be inclined to (justifiably) vote in anti-war candidates, and thereby abort the war before its stated goals have been achieved.

It is true that, at a point before the war, most people were in favor of it. I don't recognize a simple majority as the will of the people, however. In this particular case there was not enough support to sufficiently address my three points above. And we have seen the results: morale is suffering, recruitment is down, there seems to be little interest in volunteering to support the war effort, and the pro-war faction of the government has been significantly weakened. I would demand a much higher standard of public support before initiating a war. (Wars where we are not the aggressor are a different matter.)

P.S. I have been against the war from the start, but I don't object to the concept of bringing down dictatorships. I object to the particular arguments used, the lack of honesty in the marketing campaigns, the illogical urgency of the invasion, the unwise allocation of resources, and the questionable motives of those who led us. The subsequent mismanagement justifies my concerns, but was never my primary objection to the war.

Re:Public Permission?

[unbug]

Spending money on things for the good of the government, but that is something the average person wouldnt want to pay for himself, is what the government is for. There, fixed that for you.

Hung like a...

[Anonymous Coward]

no longer just a figure of speech

Re:Hung like a...

[bondjamesbond]

Yeah. Sign me up for the human-compatible (hung like a...) appendage transplant.

I think I dated one of these

[InsMonkey]

I think I dated one of these...

Suddenly...

[pwnies]

Furries across the world rejoiced in their parents' basements.

Re:Suddenly...

[Holammer]

Well... The prospect of Neko catgirls isn't that bad, or is it? God needs something to punish anyway.

Re:Suddenly...

[REggert]

Who modded that "informative"????

Re:Suddenly...

[Anonymous Coward]

They have all the reasons to be rejoicing since long ago. Eva Mendes said on the November's Maxim she wants to have sex with furries. I would like to be a furry...

Re:Suddenly...

[KermodeBear]

Aye, I do indeed rejoice. Not from the basement though - from the barn behind my house. (o:

Re:Suddenly...

[geekoid]

I don't think "rejoiced " was the word you were looking for.

Re:Suddenly...

[bky1701]

I, for one, welcome our new genetically-modified mutant furry overlords.

Re:Suddenly...

[Anonymous Coward]

Until you endup in the gutter, with several feral cat-people who escaped the labs.

better late than never

[I8TheWorm]

Approved over 4 years after Chinese scientists apparently already began experimenting with the same.

Oh, and the obligatory "I for one welcome our new <insert your own human/animal hybrid here> overlords."

Re:better late than never

[Dr_SimonCPU]

I, for one, very much welcome our Jessica Alba look-alike human-cat hybrids.

Creating chimeras?

[techpawn]

That's the most deprived form of alchemy their is...

Re:Creating chimeras?

[Anonymous Coward]

Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return.

To obtain, something of equal value must be lost.

That is Alchemy's first law of Equivalent Exchange.

In those days, we really believed that to be the world's one, and only, truth.

Re:Creating chimeras?

[Badgam]

More like that's the most badass form of alchemy. The Uruk-hai would've taken over most of Rohan if Sauruman hadn't pissed off the ents.

Re:Creating chimeras?

[REggert]

That's the most depraved form of alchemy there is...

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:Creating chimeras?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was first ever reference to Fullmetal Alchemist on Slashdot I saw.

Funnily relevant.

In real world messing with life is more complicated when in anime where you get torn apart instantly if you try doing some magic on humans or get some semi-useful results without getting burnt though if you make a chimera by using a human and an animal or a lot of animals.

In here you have moral issues and legal issues when you do anything with human embryo or you have some chance to succeed if you try to dodge that by doing that using the an animal cell which you modify to become human, without any real live human material created.

Awww...

[pla]

The embryos would then be destroyed within 14 days.

So, anyone else consider that the single most dissapointing part of this?

They'd almost certainly not live long enough to ever call them infants, but even in the steps they do last through, we could learn so much by watching how they develop differently from either human or other-half embryos.

And if they actually lived to term, well, I would consider their cognitive develpment nothing short of fascinating to observe.

Re:Awww...

[ultracool]

If you actually RTFA, they are not attempting to create new species or anything like that. They want to extract stem cells. That is all right now.

Re:Awww...

[jimbojw]

The embryos would then be destroyed within 14 days.

... unless the destroy the facility first!

Re:Awww...

[J.Y.Kelly]

These aren't really hybrids in the traditional sense of the word. They're animal eggs which have had their nucleus removed and replaced with a human nucleus. The only animal DNA which remains is in the mitochondria. I'd suspect that these are similar enough that they wouldn't impede development.

There's no way these embryos are going to be allowed to develop since the success rate for the gestation of animal clones (Dolly the sheep and friends) is pretty low and I'd hope that no ethics board would approve that kind of study with humans.

Re:Awww...

[kmac06]

We could also learn so much (probably more) by creating fully human embryos, and run tests on them as they develop. And we don't need to stop at the embryo level, we can learn a lot by keeping them in a controlled environment for years while running tests. However, some of us have ethical and moral concerns about such things. Which is also why you don't have the people trying to do such research decide if is ethical for them to do so.

Re:Awww...

[ladquin]

You gotta be freakin' kidding...

Though, the part I love the most is where it says "research showed that people in large are OK with the idea."
WTF?

Come on! Where are the scientists? Because those aren't for sure. Im a scientist myself, and ethics and moral responsability were tought along with physics... I would keep typing but Im too upset to...

Planet of the Apes

[sammyo]

No wait, a human-roach hybrid, now that could like become the actual true master race...

Re:Planet of the Apes

[calebt3]

No can do. Our nuclear arsenal would be obsolete overnight.

Re:Planet of the Apes

[tlon]

Human-Roach Hybrid - Don't they call that "Lawyer"?

Re:Planet of the Apes

[calebt3]

You're thinking Roach/Shark/Weasel hybrid. Note the lack of any trace of humanity.

Re:Planet of the Apes

[Anonymous Coward]

My concern would be that a disease common in the target animal species will have better opportunity to cross species through one of these chimera.

I expect the military would have some interest in that as well.

Re:Planet of the Apes

[IdeaMan]

I'm just waiting for the day I can have my own Nightelf Mohawk.

How is this better?

[shadylookin]

I know a lot of people are against cloning human embryos extracting the stem cells and then aborting them. So how on earth could splicing humans cells with animals, harvesting it, and then aborting it possibly be construed as better? Personally I don't care either way, but I can't see how you could be happier with cross species embryos than with good old cloning from a moral standpoint

Re:How is this better?

[Surt]

A significant number of the religious fundies would say that a half human monster thing cannot have a soul, so you get a big win over the pure human when you kill it (note that most fundies are not vegetarians, for example, and are perfectly ok with killing animals for research).

Re:How is this better?

[iamdrscience]

The difference is that one may be considered an affront to human life whereas the other is more likely to be considered an affront to God.

While an affront to God may at first seem worse, you have to realize that there are more scientists who don't believe in God than there are who don't believe that they're human.

Re:How is this better?

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting egg cells from animals is easier than getting egg cells from humans (in that the animals are not given the right to object to having their eggs harvested).

Re:How is this better?

[Artraze]

This is talking about using an animal embryo to create and harvest cells. The key here is that the embryo itself is animal. Humans have been creating and destroying animal life for ages and only very care so long as the animals don't suffer. The reason why people are against using human embryos is because we'd then be staring to create and destroy _human_ life for research, which is a very different thing. (Of course that's only if you view creating human embryos as creating human life, but many people do.)

Re:How is this better?

[DigitalReverend]

As a student of theology I might be able to shed some light on this.

In the eyes of religion, the human egg and the human sperm are considered potential humans, even more so when joined. Hence the reason it is considered sinful when a man "spills his seed".

Except for the reproductive cells, any other human cell cannot be considered a potential human, therefore using some skin cells and implanting them in a cow egg and aborting the fetus after 14 days would not be considered human abortion.

Basically this is a loophole around the whole ethics thing as long as the fetus is terminated. A whole new bag of worms is waiting to be opened if one of those embryos goes to term and a 8lb 10oz bouncing blue eyed huvine (boman?) is born.

Re:How is this better?

[zoips]

If it dances like a Tauren I'll uphold it as my new god.

Re:How is this better?

[Blakey Rat]

The animals used are cute fluffy kittens. When people see the kittens, everyone feels better about the whole process.

Also, maybe a lot of scientists are furries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom

Re:How is this better?

[Vegeta99]

I already met a Boman. Her name was Beverly, and she wore combat boots.

Re:How is this better?

[geekoid]

how udderly ridiculous!

Clearly he would be called CudMan
Na na na na nanana CUDMAN!
Na na na na nanana CUDMAN!, CUDMAAAN!,CUDMAAAAAAN!

or
Udderman, Udderman, squirts milk like a udder can,
Has four stomachs, moos real loud, catches crooks and thats not fud,
What you steeped in, that's not cud.
WATCHOUT! here some Udderman.

Re:How is this better?

[snickkers]

So, taking the rib from a man and creating a woman from it is implausible, according to religion?

Bring it!

[mugnyte]

  Man, this sounds very fun. I have no clue what they'd create in beyond the 14 days (very unlikely to survive anyway) - the idea that there will be a generation of scientists experienced with work like this is exciting!

  In some years from now, some regime will pay for the experiments to continue the 14 growth into longer periods, perhaps drilling a way towards useful organs. I seriously doubt a full creature could ever result - really. But I'd certainly like to be able to graft on a tail that wasn't rejected because it used my cells as a root.

Island

[Dan East]

The embryos would then be destroyed within 14 days.

I have a hunch that some lab tech would end up with a private Island of Doctor Moreau in their garage, via a few test tubes that were somehow misplaced at the lab.

Dan East

Re:Island

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the same feeling now that I just completed reading "NEXT" by Michael Crichton.

-AC

Re:Will they?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, this is the same link you posted Dec. 29th. Trying to drive traffic to a site or something? We're watching you...

Furrys

[Anonymous Coward]

And thus, the first furry was born!

I'd have been...

[kabocox]

You know weirdly, I'd have been o.k. with it, but now reading the slashdot headline, I'm against it for some weird reason. Why is this?

I'm o.k. with having pigs and other animals genetically engineered to grow ideal human organs for transplant into humans. I could care less about the animal. I'm also o.k. with vat like bacteria/yeast making various human hormones and other things. I don't care about animals of other species being mass slaughtered for our benefit. I eat at McDonald's every day so I enjoy the fruits of mass slaughtering cattle. It's got to be that it's in a slashdot headline that makes something about this inherently wrong.

This headline feels "wrong" for some reason.

Re:I'd have been...

[The Grim Reefer]

I shoud think you would be OK with it, you're going to need a new heart every 10 years or so.

Re:I'd have been...

[Choad Namath]

This headline feels "wrong" for some reason.

Probably because the term "hybrid" makes it sound like they're trying to create a functional animal that's a combination of two species. They're not making a centaur, they're trying to use an animal framework to produce human cells. They need to come up with a better term to use than "hybrid".

They Shouldn't Destroy Them!

[lbmouse]

I want to adopt one.

So...

[errxn]

...I guess that makes Mansquito a documentary, then?

I believe human beings and fish can..

[Carbon016]

...co-exist peacefully..within the same egg.

Real hybridization?

[roggg]

So, my question is, is this truly a case of hybridization (ie a cross of human and animal genetic material with attributes of both), or is this inserting human DNA into an animal egg to grow human stem cells? TFA is pretty lacking in any kind of detail.

Nothing new...

[CF4L]

This is nothing that hasn't been done before. The Denver Broncos' head coach is a living example of this.

Mike Shanahan: http://www.chieftain.com/archive/2003/dec/5/sptPBS105BRONCOSBENGALS.jpg

Animal Embryo source: http://www.noblepest.com/images/brown-rat.jpg

Green light?

[Kingrames]

You know, since human beings are all biologically classified as animals and the word hybrid has a fuzzy definition to say the least, I would think that everyone would already have the "green light go-ahead" to go and reproduce the old fashioned way. Of course, I could be wrong.

I for one...

[monopole]

... welcome our new Manimal overlords.
Especially if they are in Neko Mimi Mode.

I'm no ultra conservative...

[TimeTraveler1884]

They'd almost certainly not live long enough to ever call them infants...

But what if they do? I am not comfortable with humanity taking such reckless leaps without even a clue of what the possible consequences are. Our society has become one of instant gratification; I really hope our science does not either.

Re:I'm no ultra conservative...

[Cedric Tsui]

What you have is a little blob of animal stem cells with a few human stem cells thrown into the mix. Both are multiplying, but we mostly have animal cells. What would likely happen is once the embryo's cells begin specialization and an immune system develops, it would kill off all the human cells leaving itself crippled, deformed and dying.

Re:I'm no ultra conservative...

[c6gunner]

I am not comfortable with humanity taking such reckless leaps without even a clue of what the possible consequences are. Our society has become one of instant gratification

Yes, because all those past, wise societies, spent SO much time thinking about the possible consequences of inventing the space shuttle, the atomic bomb, airplanes, ships, siege weapons, vaccines, indoor plumbing, the wheel, and fire.

I'll never understand this sort of mindset. If it were up to you, we'd still be painting mammoths on cave walls, and you'd be bitching about this new-fangled "art" thing, too.

Re:I'm no ultra conservative...

[toiletsalmon]

You can't seriously think those examples are exactly the same, can you?

The problem is that we didn't "INVENT" biology, it invented us. Because of that, it is very likely that there might be some things going on in there that we have no clue about.

But, by all means, please, don't let a little concern stop you. After all, your little example of the atom bomb turned out completely benign, so no worries.

Full speed ahead!

*Pulls train whistle
Choo! Choo!

Re:I'm no ultra conservative...

[Daimanta]

Well, we all know how it ended with the atomic bombs.

Scientists will probably be our undoing this way. They never wonder IF they should do something, since they only care about HOW they should do something.

Re:I'm no ultra conservative...

[c6gunner]

The problem is that we didn't "INVENT" biology, it invented us.

We didn't invent fire, metal, nuclear reactions, or bacterial organisms either, we just learned how to harness and use them to our advantage. What makes biology any different?

Because of that, it is very likely that there might be some things going on in there that we have no clue about.

Oh, yeah, we knew EVERYTHING about fire before we started using it. Gotcha. Thanks for the input.

But, by all means, please, don't let a little concern stop you. After all, your little example of the atom bomb turned out completely benign, so no worries.

No, you see, I'm not going to let YOUR concern stop me. If I want to make something, and I'm satisfied that I'm doing it right, then I'm bloody well gonna go and do it, and if you get in my way you're going to go home with a bloody nose. If you've got a valid reason why it shouldn't be done, then state your case, but I'm sick and tired of clueless cowards trying to tell me that I can't do something because they "feel" that it might be wrong.

Re:I'm no ultra conservative...

[tic!lock]

  Heck, we still don't know much about the hundreds of different processes that occur in something as seemingly simple as a candle flame. Odd that that came up just now, as I have an article on my desk about just that (sorry, no linkie, Discover never published it online that I can find).

  Fascinating article, tho. Did you know that if you shine a bright light on a flame, it casts a shadow? Comes from the various solid products (soot and unburned particles from the fuel) that are mixed within the flame...

tic

Re:I'm no ultra conservative...

[c6gunner]

Well, we all know how it ended with the atomic bombs.

Yep, they ended WW2 early, saving hundreds of thousands of lives, and they kept the worlds two superpowers at a relative peace for 40 years, thereby saving millions of lives. They were also the precursor to nuclear power plants, which are the closest we've come to an unlimited, reliable, non-polluting power source. The horrors!

Scientists will probably be our undoing this way. They never wonder IF they should do something, since they only care about HOW they should do something.

I think you dropped your bible.

Re:I'm no ultra conservative...

[toiletsalmon]

"you're going to go home with a bloody nose"

Wow! That was uncalled for.

It saddens me that you're so angry, and I hope you can get over whatever it is that troubles you.

Have a safe and pleasant evening.

Re:I'm no ultra conservative...

[cyphercell]

...I'm sick and tired of clueless cowards trying to tell me that I can't do something because they "feel" that it might be wrong.

I don't really think you made him feel warm and fuzzy inside. With the right friends you might ask someone to take a look, otherwise you should understand that assholes like this won't likely hurt you unless they're ordered too (they can't really think for themselves), or you tell them you love them. In which case you just went from annoying nerd to abused boyfriend.

The furries are going to love this...

[Anonymous Coward]

literally.

-ac.

Nope...

[Anonymous Coward]

They speak American.

Manbearpig

[biscon]

Something half pig, half manbear must come out of this.
Better call Al Gore.

Re:Manbearpig

[Freeside1]

I think it'll be more half man, half bearpig.

Re:Manbearpig

[brjndr]

According to Al Gore, ManBearPig is "half man, half bear, half pig".

Re:Manbearpig

[siglercm]

Excelsior! (chuckle)

Re:Manbearpig

[Anonymous Coward]

Before you know it, we'll be overrun by chimp-human hybrids. Who knows, maybe one day they'll be running the place. Oh wait...

The implications are clear:

[Ralph Spoilsport]

God made man
But he used the monkey to do it
Apes in the plan
Were all here to prove it
I can walk like an ape
Talk like an ape
I can do what a monkey can do
God made man
But a monkey supplied the glue

-JOCKO HOMO

Re:The implications are clear:

[snicho99]

Heh heh.

But you know, if I was a the kind of Christian (and I'm not ANY kind of christian - sorry) that took the whole, "God made Us through Evolution" thing seriously, then you already had to consider the possibility that we aren't God's end game. After all, maybe we are only 75% evolved to His master vision.

But to take that the next logical step... perhaps it was Intended that we create our own replacements...

Yes, but...

[colonslash]

Are they safe to eat?

Re:Yes, but...

[s_p_oneil]

They taste like chicken.

yes but....

[Anonymous Coward]

does it have 4 asses?

oblig. southpark reference

Is it can be Trogdor tiem now?

[snarfies]

Trogdor was a man!
I mean, he was a... dragon-man!
Er, maybe he was just a dragon
But he was still
TROGDOOOOOOR! TROGDOOOOOR!

AND THEN TROGDOR COMES IN THE NIIIIIIGHT!

TFA didn't mention...

[MiniMike]

Will there be overlords?

And because China does it it's good?

[lennier]

Better hurry up and build that Internet censorship proxy fast, the Chinese are beating us at that one too.

Re:And because China does it it's good?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that's one damn brilliant argument. Hey, murderers breathe. Better hurry up and stop breathing, because murderers breathe that makes you one too.

(Hint: one thing has nothing to do with the other thing.)

Re:Will they?

[Anonymous Coward]

this is the only link this fucking spammer posts... and it is done with multiple accounts on multiple sites as seen HERE

it is part of some stupid need to be #1 at spamming people into coming to his shitty site to "Win"

Validates the Religious Right

[goldspider]

Remember how everyone said "Aww shucks! We're just going to use cloning for stem cell research! We'd NEVER do anything funky like crossing humans and animals!" in response to cloning critics?

Well now those critics have been validated, and the Religious Right has more ammunition with which they can stall actual valid medical research.

This is what unrestrained morbid curiosity gets you. Too bad productive science as a whole has to suffer.

Re:Validates the Religious Right

[geekoid]

"We'd NEVER do anything funky like crossing humans and animals!" "
no, who said that? And did they speak for everybody? I expect and DESIRE them to do so.

This is of course a direct result of them cutting off federal funding from stem cell research.

Re:Validates the Religious Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they are doing this ESPECIALLY to study stem cells, by getting human stem cells from non-human embryos

Re:Validates the Religious Right

[goldspider]

no, who said that?

The fundies speculated that cloning would eventually lead to human-animal hybrids. They were right. How long do you think it will take before these scientists "accidentally" allows these embryos to develop beyond 14 days?

This is of course a direct result of them cutting off federal funding from stem cell research.

This is happening in the UK, not the US. You did RTFA, right?

Re:Validates the Religious Right

[geekoid]

I know they said that. My question was "Who said they weren't? going to create animal/human hybred."

Yes I RTFA, but the cutting of of US federal funds had an impact outside the US as well. Political impacts/research impact, and a monetary impact. Scientists in the US could do it and then collaborate on their findings, so that impacted the community as a whole, regardless of borders.

The probably won't, scientists tend to be good about that, and when they're not, they are quickly found out.
OTOH, I want them to go past 14 days. Hell, I want them to create an animal that can be easily harvested for parts.
However, that's not the goal, the goal is to be able to create just the needed organs in a dish on demand. Now THAT would be awesome. Get a new pancreas and liver and kidney and heart? excellent. I would loveto have the same organs on the same condition the ones I had were in 20- years ago.

There already are UK furry conventions

[greenreaper]

There already are two furry conventions in the UK - RBW and ConFuzzled. See the furry convention map for more worldwide.

Re:There already are UK furry conventions

[cansado]

See the furry convention map for more worldwide.

No.

Re:There already are UK furry conventions

[modecx]

See the furry convention map for more worldwide.

No.

Don't be too hasty, now... I've heard that throwing rocks is a great reliever of stress, and and excellent source of exercise!

Re:There already are UK furry conventions

[Anonymous Coward]

Pic related

Re:There already are UK furry conventions

[bersl2]

Greenreaper, to be quite honest, I don't think any of them were wanting that information. ;)

Re:There already are UK furry conventions

[greenreaper]

Well, they'd better join up quick, or they'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes. Nuts and berries for all!

Re:There already are UK furry conventions

[bersl2]

SSSHHHHHHH!!! They're not supposed to know about that!</whisper>

Timely photo from the fringe: Dog / human hybrid?

[StefanJ]

This creepy thing is most likely a freakishly deformed puppy, but I'm sure it will be good for some tabloid news stories.

the human/ipod hybrid...

[havenskate]

I hope they're not planning a human/ipod hybrid... That could be what leads to the inslavement of the human race! If only we would have known they'd unite and overthrow the humans -- I can see it now!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtsHLLqs1D0
sigh

Suggestion

[B3ryllium]

The tagline at the top should be changed to:

"From the Department of Dr. Moreau"

Re:People in Iarge? More imPORTantly...

[davidsyes]

Will they have a green light on on their foreheads?

(And, will their entry into the world mark them as greenhorns?)

As long as they don't do it on an island

[s_p_oneil]

Because, you know, that would be a little too creepy.

Sick

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just going to say this because nobody else will, world get a grip this is sick. It'll only pave the way to wicked scientific/medical practices.

Oh.. you're not feeling well, oh well you're young enough; we'll harvest you for your stemcells while you're still alive. Have fun! Yay money for me!

I can see it now...

[dr_strang]

Gives a whole new meaning to the word "furry".

Re:I can see it now...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's precisely the meaning they have been longing for.
I sense a fresh glut of fanfiction on the horizon... soon to not be fiction.

(And really, who wouldn't want a cute cat-girl?)

Re:I can hear the excuses already... This, hot on

[davidsyes]

the heeling, healing heels of the SETI report. I can hear "THIS is the DAWNING of the AGE of aQUEERiUS.... AGE of aQUEERiUUUSSS.. a-QUEER-EE-UhhhhSSS...."

They'd better....

[Joseph Hayes]

... test the shit out of these orc parts before they put them into people. I'd hate to see a new AIDS come of this.

New Species? Bos Sapiens...

[DigitalReverend]

or would it be Homo Taurus

Polls aren't a good reason to do it

[Anonymous Coward]

My GF worked for a major, well-known polling company for over a year. She explained to me that technology client companies write their own survey questions (and not the polling company) and MORE OFTEN THAN NOT design their questions (which have to be read word for word by the caller---or they get fired) so that they lead to the desired answer.

For example:

Q1. Do you feel positive about animal human hybrids?
A. No

Q2. Would you feel positive if it leads to breakthroughs in Stem Cell Research that cure Cancer?
A. Yes

The company then goes on to publish its results and only includes Q2 and not Q1. You will be floored if you knew how much of this is going on. When she saw a national news report on a survey she was involved in like the example, she was considering approaching the media but decided against it as she felt her job and those of her co-workers at their site would be at risk.

Not kawaii...

[Gilmoure]

...Not kawaii at all!

Here's what they would create.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's as simple as an equation:

http://www.gign.lv/forum/uploads/av-649.jpg

What is the Law?

[mollace]

Not to go on all-Fours; that is the Law. Are we not Men? Not to eat Flesh or Fish; that is the Law. Are we not Men? Not to claw Bark of Trees; that is the Law. Are we not Men? Not to chase other Men; that is the Law. Are we not Men?"

Stop playing WoW and get in the real world.

[nickruiz]

Stem cells my foot. People just want to see if they can create lizardmen and minotaurs. Those WoW enthusiasts need to calm down with their grass root politics.

ethics

[swanriversean]

Welcome to the 21st century ... ethics by opinion polls!
The 20th century's politics by opinion polls was bad enough.

In related news:

[TheJerg]

A 13 year old boy and a man in a large suit of armor have been seen strolling around different parts of the country riding trains and causing general mayhem and seeking the Philosopher's Stone.

Future? What future?

[Cannelloni]

I'm thinking of a miserable future along the lines of The Island of Dr. Moreau...

Dr. Moreau

[Dancindan84]

Is the research taking place on a secluded island?

Are you planning some kind of animal human hybrid?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you coming on to me?

We were warned...

[Tz-Auber]

By our favorite simian/homo-sapien hybrid:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-10.html#

Ridiculously Misleading Article Title

[calcapt]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7193820.stm

I find this incredibly irritating. The specifics of the term "hybrid" are not elaborated upon and the continual use of the term"human-animal hybrid" allows for people to develop the notion that scientists out there are actually creating some monster chimeric creature.

Not. True. If you click on "Q&A Hybrid Embryos", found in the right hand nav bar, you'll see what I mean. I've provided the link below:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6233415.stm

This second link elaborates on why these eggs are considered "hybrid". Genetic material (DNA) is essentially removed from animal cells, leaving an empty nucleus and functional cellular machinery. In other words, you have a cell without DNA that looks very much like a human cell without it's DNA. The scientists then inject human DNA into the animal cell's nucleus; at this point the animal cell reads instructions off the DNA and carries them out. The end product is essentially A HUMAN CELL, but with left over proteins and cellular material generated from the old animal DNA.

This is FAR different from what people appear to be assuming. It's not going to generate some half cow-half human monster/creature, and does NOT "blur" the boundaries between humans and other species.

Re:Ridiculously Misleading Article Title

[ultranova]

I find this incredibly irritating. The specifics of the term "hybrid" are not elaborated upon and the continual use of the term"human-animal hybrid" allows for people to develop the notion that scientists out there are actually creating some monster chimeric creature.

I hear you. It is disgusting that people badmouth these scientist who are in reality working hard to create human-cat hybrids to star in live action versions of japanese anime shows.

Re:Ridiculously Misleading Article Title

[mikechant]

It's not going to generate some half cow-half human monster/creature,... ...to the average slashdotter's eternal disappointment.

Re:Ridiculously Misleading Article Title

[Anonymous Coward]

The end product is essentially A HUMAN CELL, but with left over proteins and cellular material generated from the old animal DNA. Not all DNA is inside the nucleus. The end product will have human nuclear DNA and (non-human) animal mtDNA

Re:Ridiculously Misleading Article Title

[Anonymous Coward]

The actual BBC TV News about it was much better at explaining it.

Re:Ridiculously Misleading Article Title

[CommunistHamster]

Can we fit this into the Drake Equation somehow? "Percentage of worlds with intelligent life that develop catgirls".

Re:Ridiculously Misleading Article Title

[Nazlfrag]

Mitochondria can also pass between adult cells (full text on the right). This seems an insanely dangerous path of research. The were-beasts are nigh!

Re:Ridiculously Misleading Article Title

[Anonymous Coward]

Far from creating human-cow hybrids, these embryos could, however, turn out to be less viable or different from conventional human embryos. Though IANADB (I'm not a developmental biologist), I know there is a lot of data highlighting the importance of maternal cytosolic factors (like mRNAs) in early embryogenesis. The initial proteins would be of animal origin so the new human proteins may interact/respond to these differently and thus influence the early development of the embryo. I didn't read TFA, but I suppose there could be a lot learned about the relative contribution of cytosolic factors in early development from this.

Re:Ridiculously Misleading Article Title

[Mortiss]

Not quite true.
There is plenty of other extrachromosomal DNA left in the cell eg. mitochondrial DNA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA Although it does not recombine with chromosomal DNA, it is inherited via maternal line and its mutations have been linked to several genetic disorders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_disease. Therefore it will be interesting to see the effects of animal mitochondrial sequences in a cell with human genome. On the whole, this project seems to be an interesting therapeutic cloning approach iin addition to using transgenic pigs to grow replacement organs.

Re:Ridiculously Misleading Article Title

[calcapt]

Interesting point, which I admit I neglected in my post. This does prompt me to wonder if animal mitochondria could be removed from animal cells and be replaced with mitochondria from the human cell.

Re:Ridiculously Misleading Article Title

[jlhalbleib]

Hmmm... What about the leftover mitochondrial DNA from the cow's egg cell? That's certainly going to be passed on to the "blended" embryo.

Joe

Re:Ridiculously Misleading Article Title

[Anonymous Coward]

In the bible "All man born of women can be killed" Hmmm so man born of Pig cannot be killed.. Dang is should had wait to when they where making Hybrids Immortal Pig man FTW! We be Called Moblins! (yup the Pigmen of Legend of Zelda).

or Better ManBearPig!

Re:Ridiculously Misleading Article Title

[Anonymous Coward]

This second link elaborates on why these eggs are considered "hybrid". Genetic material (DNA) is essentially removed from animal cells, leaving an empty nucleus and functional cellular machinery. In other words, you have a cell without DNA that looks very much like a human cell without it's DNA. The scientists then inject human DNA into the animal cell's nucleus; at this point the animal cell reads instructions off the DNA and carries them out. The end product is essentially A HUMAN CELL, but with left over proteins and cellular material generated from the old animal DNA. This is FAR different from what people appear to be assuming. It's not going to generate some half cow-half human monster/creature, and does NOT "blur" the boundaries between humans and other species. The egg cell still contains source mitochondrial DNA, and thus the embryo is significantly different from a human cell. Quite what impact this will have on the development of the embryo is not yet determined, but significant research will need to be carried out to determine whether stem cells derived from such an embryo behave exactly like stem cells from human embryos.

Re:Ridiculously Misleading Article Title

[KiwiCanuck]

Yes, but the way it is currently worded will generate more hits, and thus more ad. revenue.

Re:Ridiculously Misleading Article Title

[ultranova]

Can we fit this into the Drake Equation somehow? "Percentage of worlds with intelligent life that develop catgirls".

Not really in any significant way, since intelligent life develops catgirls by definition. Just look at ancient Egypt: they had a cat-headed goddess, held cats to be sacred, mummified them... The Sphinx is nothing but an early attempt to iron out the concept of a catgirl. Or look at Japan: they lost a war, got nuked and occupied, lost their empire, yet their culture not only survived but is taking the world by a storm. Why ? Catgirls.

Sounds great!

[sn0wcrash]

I for one welcome our anthropomorphic overlords.

Doesn't it seem strangely appropriate...

[WNightBlade]

That the world's first genuine furries are going to be abortions?

If the embryos are going to be just 14 days old at the start, it's really not a problem on the pain/development level. Of course, if they do seem viable before they're destroyed, it does raise some unsettling questions about how to proceed from there. Let them develop three months until destruction? Second trimester? Let them be born?

Of course, this all depends on scientists working some extremely interesting biological tricks to cram a square genetic peg into a round genetic hole.

Awesome...Man-Bear-Pig should be the first creatio

[The GIS Guy]

I'm serial!

Blah blah blah.

[SatanicPuppy]

I think we all wish you weren't an intellectually bankrupt hysteric, but wishes don't seem to help very much.

If you truly believe that a few cells bound together are capable of experiencing cruelty, then how do you go through your day? If you sneeze you're killing more cells than that. I certainly hope you're a vegan, but even there, how do you bear the sufferings of all the vegetables?

In your world menstruation is murder, and masturbation is genocide, so why don't you go crusade against porn or something?

Re: Human Sheep Hybrid

[TaoPhoenix]

I thought the RIAA was working on that.

I Can see it now

[Teflon_Jeff]

"Scientist blends DNA with arachnid. Amazing Spider-Man wreaks havoc on New York City. Further Superheroes to follow"

Just as usual.

[Z00L00K]

There are certainly those who are willing to let it grow beyond the 14 day limit...

Can be a creepy result... A sheep with a human brain... Or the opposite... Those are extremes...

But what about a human with polar bear fur?

Never mind - there are better features that I would have had... Better eyesight maybe? Birds are able to see UV-radiation, and some birds have a lot better vision than humans. On the other hand the genome for UV isn't lost in humans - it's actually changed into blue instead, probably because it's more useful that way. (so we can see the BSOD from M$)

Or a simple feature - why does humans really need toilet paper? Most animals can keep themselves clean anyway!

And the XXX industry would like to have a man hung like a horse...

And the athletes would like to be able to run like a cheetah.

But don't forget - humans are actually one of the more adaptable species in the world, even if laziness and sex drive are the most prominent features of a human. (don't underestimate the amount of work a human can do to avoid work later...)

Re:Just as usual.

[StalinsNotDead]

why does humans really need toilet paper? Most animals can keep themselves clean anyway!

So you're suggesting a more flexible spine and a longer tongue?

Some people are never satisfied

[why-is-it]

God, schomd, I want my monkey-man!

What, one Steve Ballmer isn't enough for you?

Better mileage?

[fahrbot-bot]

Will I get better mileage with a human/animal hybrid than a gas/electric?

Promise Me You WIll Use the Power for Good

[Anonymous Coward]

If this somehow leads to chickens with 8 legs or a cat the can wash dishes, I'm all for it.

Unfortunately, this technology will probably fall into the wrong hands, such as the porn industry. We'll end up with porn stars that have 8 breasts and wangs that glow in the dark. Believe me there will be no end to the shenanigans ;)

Way worse, IMO

[Sid Nitzerglobin]

I'm no Bioengineer/Geneticist, and I certainly don't consider myself a social or intellectual conservative, but this seems like a much worse idea than human embryo harvesting (or cloning for that matter).

Just seems wrong on so many levels, what with the potential for species hopping super viri and psycho, deformed man-imal hybrids if they ever brought these things to term.

Maybe I'm just a pop-science/sci-fi victim though.

Why would it be unethical?

[ubergeek65536]

I just don't get why this would be unethical? Does mother nature hold patents I'm not aware of?

Since when ...

[mrtortoise]

... are humans not animals? If humans aren't animals, what are they?

Correction: "human/non-human embryos"

[xPsi]

Regulators in the UK have given scientists the green light to create human-animal embryos for research. Humans are animals.

Let he who is without fur cast the first stone...

[greenreaper]

Unfortunately, you'd find it tricky to get within range, as all relevant conventions are fully booked until December. European furry convention organizers are being hard-pressed to keep up with increasing demand, despite significant expansion in the last few years.

I disagree

[geekoid]

They need to make Centaurs!
Also, OwlBears.

What if they grow up?

[HandsOnFire]

I always argue with my friend about animal rights.

Me: Can bees vote?
Steve: No, they're not men.
Me: Can half-man half-bees vote?
Steve: No, they're too bee.
Me: Can 90% man 10% bee vote?
:
:
:
and so on

I don't have an answer for this, but I can't stad vegans so it's hard to take a safe stance. I guess I should do what maddox does and take a non-safe stance: Man-Bee can vote but I can kill him and eat him if I choose. :)

DIbs on the

[geekoid]

Hardvark.

Please RTFA

[Benaiah]

So many comments clearly have no idea about what the article is about. THere will be no genome mixing... No manbearpigs, no gumans, hardvarks or even polar bumans. Just trying to turn random human cells into stem cells by using animal eggs without their DNA... Then if it works they terminate the experiment and try again :)

If they didn't cancel the experiment, you get a human clone. No animal hybrids.

The human/man hybrid are callled niggers

[Anonymous Coward]

the smelliest fuckin' animals since they grew gills for not getting on Noah's arc. Some say the act of putting a hair-comb in their kinky-top is a vestigial behavior of remnant Jewfish to breath through pores on their skin. Nowdays, the pores can only be seen after a bullet widens them.

I hate to make a Nazi-like reference, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

...even Josef Mengele didn't think up stuff like this. Of course, Mengele didn't think there was anything wrong with what he was doing, either. The difference is that then, hardly anyone agreed with him. If he were alive today and doing his sicko shit, he might not even get in trouble.

In the not too distant future...

[tfg12786]

"A planet where apes evolved from men? There's got to be an answer."

Don't look for it, Taylor. You may not like what you find.

Angus Young

[flyingfsck]

Dirty deeds, done with sheep...

And a duck is not a bird!

[0xdeadbeef]

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Know who said that? Thomas fucking Jefferson, that's who. Maybe you've heard of him?

But you don't have to take it from a dead guy:

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Truer words have never been spoken.

Re:And a duck is not a bird!

[ThePlague]

Which is one of the major reasons the US is so fucked up right now. The casual attitude to the constitution is what allows torture to be openly advocated in congress, illegal wiretaps to be allowed, the effective suspension of habeas corpus if you're dubbed an "enemy combatant", etc. Why does this happen? Because the governed don't care enough to do anything about it at best, or even actively support it, and the constitutional safeguards are being ignored.

It may be "just a goddamned piece of paper", but it is the only thing protecting the minority from the mob. That's the fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic. In a democracy, a (50+x)% majority can vote to do anything they want to the other (50-x)% of the population. Anything at all. In a republic, certain inalienable rights are endowed by dint of the "goddamned piece of paper" that can not be taken away no matter what the majority say.

Now, the mechanics of the US republic is democratic. That is, how leadership is determined is laid out in the constitution as being a democratic process. That's not the only possible way one could have a republic, as there could be hereditary leadership, or a random lottery, or any number of ways.

Re:Let he who is without fur cast the first stone.

[modecx]

Oh, don't worry. I'm sure that with my training in mechanical engineering and some basic materials, we won't have to get all that close. >;)

Surprised About the Obvious

[tmjva]

With all the religious comments, I'm surprised no one said the obvious about the result being the Beast from Revelation? It sure makes it possible. (Or all those commenters just trying to talk around it.)

"Kill Me..."

[Bones3D_mac]

I'm sure at some point, some crazy bastard will try to use this to create animals with intelligence and motivations far closer to humans. If, at one point, such a pokemon-esque creature breaks the communication barrier with mankind, this could be the first words it utters in some form.

Re: toilet paper

[TheLink]

I don't usually use toilet paper - I use water and soap to clean, and then a towel to dry (trick is to make sure everything is clean first, otherwise... :) ). I don't think I'm the only one in the world who does this.

I find the idea of using toilet paper rather unsanitary (and also less comfortable too).

If using soap and water is good enough to clean your hands, it should be good enough for cleaning your butt. If it isn't good enough for you then you should be using something better, and toilet paper certainly isn't better - I don't see surgeons cleaning their hands and arms with toilet paper.

If you're obsessive you could apply alcohol to kill any left over germs.

Can anyone explain the logic of this to me?

[mam_bach]

The reason given for wanting to use animal material last time this came up (probably the start of the consult process) is the chronic shortage of human stem cells. Why is this the case?

Nobody seems to have asked for donated human material, with consent to use the cells in this fashion. I'm sure male cells can't be hard to obtain...
(Hmm - "Wank for research material! Form orderly queue here!")
Why is it that the hairdresser throws away my hair, donating blood is laudable, organ donation saves lives - but donating some of my hundreds of useless eggs (how many kids I am realistically going to have?) is morally outrageous and really quite hard to do - neither my doctor nor the local fertility clinic had any clue on how to do such.

Who do we vote out / mob / de-fund to get some common sense injected to reasearch ethics committees?

Re:Let he who is without fur cast the first stone.

[Kamineko]

Ohhhhh... Is that what the catapult arm thing from the other story is for?

I for one welcome...

[thrill12]

...our new Kwisatz Haderach

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

no Elephantmen for a while? Fuck.

Fullmetal Alchemist

[WizzardX]

Where's the chimera tag?

Who's OK With This?

[ronadams]

The decision to allow the embryos was made after research showed that people in large are OK with the idea. They didn't ask me, because I'm sure as hell not "OK" with the idea of destroying human embryos to blend them with animals. There's already enough breeding farm business out there for other reasons, no need to extend it with ridiculous BS like this.

Re:Let he who is without fur cast the first stone.

[modecx]

Well, that robot arm it's far too inefficient for use as a catapult. We are, however, working on a direct monkey->giant-robotic-arm neural interface, for superior Furry battering ability... Which if you think adds a pinch of irony; who would expect a furry little creature to use a giant robotic arm to splatter humans dressed in animal costumes?

this could get ugly...

[resignator]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=76500023080227528&q=chicken+lady&total=357&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Potential for legal mess.

[Eternal Annoyance]

What if one embryo gets 'lost' and somehow reaches birth, would the result be a human or an animal? If uncertainty remains, what about the poor thing's rights?

At last!

[Wolfger]

Project Manticore can now proceed. Hopefully they make many, many Jessica Albas.

Tampering with nature

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the article, critics "say it is tampering with nature". Is there any kind of technology that couldn't be described as "tampering with nature"?